Anatomy of the Next War

sweetmonicaido...I have sent you a message about my book.

Melbourne's assumptions may not be out of line. Everybody with an axe to grind knows that the Americans have their hands full just now. That's going to have a long term effect on the international situation. And yes, I wrote about that in my book, too.

Unless we want to spank 'em with sanctions, we hurt anybody involved in the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. Yes, we can spank them with air strikes, but that doesn't actually do anything except alienate the people who already don't like us.

Now, back to sweetmonicaido...I do think that the blogosphere is here to stay. It even gets to play a role in my next book. that's how much it matters in today's media stream of news that we all try to drown in every day.

I have a blog. Nobody was more surprised than me when I learned that it was actually be read by...other people. That blog has influenced people to buy my book, put me on the radio, and send me e-mail. It's not something you think about when you're sitting there with a keyboard. I know that I don't. I'm just trying to be coherent.

I am surprised that we haven't heard more about Israeli or Lebanese bloggers. I know they're out there. When the conflict heats up, we will certainly hear from them. It'll be interesting to see what the mainstream media says when the bloggers pop up to say, "it didn't happen like that." That's the real benefit of the blog. People who aren't famous or wealthy can say what they saw, and if enough ofthem agree on the events being talked about...they can keep the media...more...honest...

Looks to me like we've just seen something important. The IDF has pulled back from the Lebanese town of Bint Jbail. This was their only notable incursion in to Lebanon at this time. Did the Israelis give in to some sort of international pressure? Did their Prime Minister, who did not have a career inthe army, lose his nerve? Either way, I can't help but to think that we've just seen something that is important, and indicative of what we will face if America gets involved in another conflict.

Well, now. Looks like we've been thrown a curve ball. Has the U.N. really helped the situation, or have they forced the warfighters of tomorrow to take a harder look at their plans? One can make the case the the recent cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon will only mean a harsher war later...when it starts up again.

I find the whole thing just stupidly retarded. They've bashed each other like crazy and all of a sudden they just decide to call it quits? Not that the war should've necessarily continued, but it tells me that Israel's heart was not in it and they practically threw away the lives of Israelis and Lebanese for... I'm not sure what exactly.

This one goes to Hezbollah. They stood up against one of the most powerful militaries in the world and once again shows what modern warfare is all about.

I think that if I were on the Israeli payroll, I might advise PM Olmert to step down. As a political scientist, I would argue that if he watns a better place in history, he should admit his failure as publicly as possible. As part of his spech, he should deliber a stern warning to his people that they'd better play for keeps next time. He should also make it very clear that there WILL be another go-around with Hexbollah.

Once out of office, I would suggest that he do three things. 1. Write a book. 2. Become an activitst to make sure that the PM who comes after him will not make the same mistakes again. 3. Using his very unique perspective on this situation, he should be advised to consult with the United Nations to give them the benefit of his experience in this matter.

Doing these things will not take all of the sting out of his defeat, but it will lessen the value of the propoganda he has given to Hezbollah. In the long run, he will be able to ensure that the next Israeli response will be more effective. As a political scientist, I think this would give him a better legacy than what he is now faced with.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I think that if I were on the Israeli payroll, I might advise PM Olmert to step down. As a political scientist, I would argue that if he watns a better place in history, he should admit his failure as publicly as possible. As part of his spech, he should deliber a stern warning to his people that they'd better play for keeps next time. He should also make it very clear that there WILL be another go-around with Hexbollah.

Onething I must hand to the Israelis is that even in their defeat, they did attempt to make changes and adapt to the situation. They shook up the line-up so to speak, by replacing some commanders. Unfortunately, the changes were not sufficient as their primary warplan did not change.

Even in 2006, the U.S. government and military likens adaptation to defeat. That is a sign of idiocy.

Once out of office, I would suggest that he do three things. 1. Write a book. 2. Become an activitst to make sure that the PM who comes after him will not make the same mistakes again. 3. Using his very unique perspective on this situation, he should be advised to consult with the United Nations to give them the benefit of his experience in this matter.

Another thing I've got to hand to Israel, they are going to actually study what happened here unlike the U.S., which hasn't studied any of their actions seriously since Operation ALLIED FORCE.

I can't help thinking that we've seen a peak at our future. My hunch is that we will see more of these half-hearted starts to war, which will only continue to send the wrong signals to the enemies of the West.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I can't help thinking that we've seen a peak at our future. My hunch is that we will see more of these half-hearted starts to war, which will only continue to send the wrong signals to the enemies of the West.

I dunno. If that's the case then I hope it all ends by the end of this decade. I dunno how much more of this we can take.

You make a good point, but I can't help but notice through my research that these conficts are trending 'out,' which means they are lasting a whole lot longer than they might have in the last century. I'm working on this for my next installment in the Conspiracy Masters area. I've got some rationale lined up for my thesis, and I'll let you know when I get the kinks worked out of that.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
It has been said that Generals train to fight the last war. If that has any truth to it, what should we expect from our politicians and diplomats?

They must be exactly what is needed, not the reverse. If any aspect of social history is to change and for the better, poli tics need to be left out of it, and diplomats positioned for the better interestst to that nations "people" .

Poli tics has become too involved with corps and big business cartels, that influences the diplomats considering who is paying for them. UN could be the new force, but it has that corrupt element "Hu" factor...what to do and "what should we expect" indeed.
That I can not say, however remaining open and considering all available options for the benefit of all is best.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
It has been said that modern nations are now more vulnerable than ever before to the effects modern weapons. If that is true, we could expect to see some early upsets if the current international situation degenerates in to a shooting war. How much will today's hypothetical war look like past conficts? What will be new? Are today's national leaders capable of carrying on diplomacy in what is expected to be (early on) a fast-paced race to surgically incapacitate the opposition?

This hypothetical war could sneak up on us. Then again, we could see a decade of slow mobilization. Either way, we are faced with new forms of war which will mean an end to certain old rules and warfighting traditions.

It has been said that Generals train to fight the last war. If that has any truth to it, what should we expect from our politicians and diplomats?

If we assumed one thing about the next world war it would deffinatly involve nuclear weapons. The world would never be the same after such a war happened. The aftermath would be so castitrophic it would be amazing if any country on this planet would not come out unscathed. Billions dead more than likely after everything was all said and done. We look at the destruction from just 2 poorly designed kiloton devices in WW2 and to compare it with todays Mutli megaton bombs is so scary to say beyond horrific. This planet would never be the same again for a very long time. I would even go far to say as not just thousands of years but perhaps tens of thousands of years. From radiation alone.

Originally posted by Sonata
If we assumed one thing about the next world war it would deffinatly involve nuclear weapons. The world would never be the same after such a war happened. The aftermath would be so castitrophic it would be amazing if any country on this planet would not come out unscathed. Billions dead more than likely after everything was all said and done. We look at the destruction from just 2 poorly designed kiloton devices in WW2 and to compare it with todays Mutli megaton bombs is so scary to say beyond horrific. This planet would never be the same again for a very long time. I would even go far to say as not just thousands of years but perhaps tens of thousands of years. From radiation alone.

I think I'll have to disagree with you on the sematnics of your observation. If they are used at all, nuclear weapons will most likely be employed for theri EMP value. I will grant you that tens of thousands would still die from the particle fallout, unless the EMP device in question was a dedicated projector-type.

Groups like Hezbollah, and HAMAS would use ground-burst weapons if they could get them. their aims are not economic, and as such, the would relish the chance to poison the infidel's land for ten thousand years.

For the rest of us, wars are primarily economic in nature. Blood and treasure. We recognize that by poisoning the lands of our adversaries, we rob ourselves of anything worthy of the conquest. With this in mind, I doubt that any secular nation state would use atomic weapons in the manner you are thining of.

I agree, Justin. I personally believe that the nuclear threat is the most overstated aspect of the entire discussion. It seems to be just a holdover from the Cold War. A lot of people simply don't realize how much things would have to deteriorate in order for nukes to be used.

We may come within 30 seconds of launching nukes, but I always believe that cooler heads will prevail.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I agree, Justin. I personally believe that the nuclear threat is the most overstated aspect of the entire discussion. It seems to be just a holdover from the Cold War. A lot of people simply don't realize how much things would have to deteriorate in order for nukes to be used.

We may come within 30 seconds of launching nukes, but I always believe that cooler heads will prevail.

Nuclear weapons being used for their emp qualities alone? You forget that the only way a smaller country would ever be able to hurt the US would be with body count. Militarly no one stands a chance against a super power so why would they try to militarly combat us anyway? If you arent tall enough to punch someone in the head you might as well go for the knees. You seem to have to much faith that people know when to say no. The more and more countries that have nuclear capability the harder and harder it will be to prevent at least one nuclear detenation from happening. No Iran really doesnt care about dystroying our Air craft carriers they care more about civilian body count simply becase that the only thing they have the capability to do. Its easeir to destroy a city with a nuke then take us head on with their pea shooters against our battering rams.

[edit on 20-8-2006 by Sonata]

With all due respect, the body count from an EMP attack on a major city would be considerable. Let me use a small town like my own as an example.

I live in Anchorage, Alaska. Population 350,000. We are currently known to be within range of North Korea's ICBM. An airburst attack at 70,000 meters would blanket the whole town with it's EMP footprint.

A population like ours would lose one percent right off the top due to aviation fatalities and medical system failures. That's 1,750 in the first hour. Factor in another one percent that perishes due to auto accident and failure of EMT response, and we in our small town have just suffered losses equivelant to the World Trade Center.

If this hypothetical attack takes place in the winter time--let's be generous and say Late Winter--hypothermia and starvation kills an average of 30%. We have a lot of cold weather gear up here, so let's assume that we use it. In a single three month period, 90 days, our losses from that fictional EMP attack would be roughly 112,000 or so.

We have a lot in common with Seattle (demographics & infrastructure), so you could multiply those results by a factor of ten to get your body count from a potential EMP attack on a major West Coast city.

City officials here in Anchorage have been told to expect a death rate of up to 50% in the event of a tsunami or earthquake which occurs in non-summer conditions. the real killer in any EMP scenario is the aftermath. No amount of relief can get in to any large population center fast enough.

Please bear in mind that I didn't address at all the casualties from the particulate fallout from that fictional weapon, which would be something on the order of 7-10 thousand for a population of the size that I live in.

If they want it, our enemies will have no trouble at all when it comes to getting a body count. EMP weapons will...when used...change the way we think about WMD's. Salvagable infrustructure will be used as the principle argument to differentiate them EMP attacks from thermo-nuclear attacks. This is not something I ever hope to see.

EMP would generate significant secondary casualties, but the premise that body count is the only way to fight America is flawed anyway. The key to fighting America is to disable the complex systems which give us our remarkable edge, not to kill us all. America as a political and military force, is not a nation of several hundred million people, but a massive economic machine. It is hard to blow through a tank's armor and kill the crew inside but it is easy to dig a ditch it can't cross, to light a fire that will obscure its thermal viewing, or to knock off a tread.

EMP strikes would play hell with our communications, our economic infrastructure, our GPS dependent weapons, etc.

But it wouldn't even take EMP. Truck bombs, arson, computer viruses, and a little riot instigation, would do just as much if not more, and don't entail nearly as much work or political fallout as a nuke.

But back to EMP, EMP would work. Imagine, you can't so much as buy a gallon of gas. You can't go to the store because their registers are down, and they can't access their bank accounts to made deposits or to make change. It could turn a large part of this country into New Orleans. Don't get too caught up in the holywood obsession with body count or the simplistic obsession with big numbers that have somehow become so big a deal in America. David didn't throw a boulder, he just aimed very carefully.

All of what the wiki man just said is very true. I was going over the subject very lightly. Can you imagine these things happening in the middle of any witner? that's why I say that EMP is likely to be a part of any Next War that is truely global in scale.

Here in alska, I know dozen or even hundreds of people who have wyou you'd call a Survivalist mentality. they've all got extra-large food caches and generateors with enough spare gas to keep them in lights and hot water for a year. All of THAT presumes ideal conditions.

Once you've taken away our abilityto conduct commerce, we'd starve. the last time I was in my local super-store, I did a walk-around. I was able to finger five plain-clothes store detectives, and six uniformed rent-a-cops. Even if you doubled those numbers, that still wouldn't be enough manpower to keep the place from being looted under the wrong conditions.

Like the man says, secondary factors would be bloody. I myself would likely be dead within a year becasue I am medication-dependent. The recovery from an EMP attack would take decades, plural. that too should be factored in to the anatomy of the next war.

In a response to a question I asked him, Vagabond said that EMP attacks would also be used separately in, for example, a nuclear strike on China. EMP presents the ability to suppress the enemy, or in this case, an entire country of 1.2 billion people, completely.

Unfortunately, China is also working on EMP abilities, and they could employ that against us as well, although their abilities are more limited.

Remember Y2K? EMP will do everything Y2K was hyped up to doing.

The extent to which modern electronics and electrical systems are NOT shielded is appauling. So far as I can tell, there is nothing I own that uses power that is shielded. I did a little walk-through of my home and made a list of everytying that would stop working after an EMP attack. My grand total came to 51 items.

The starvation factor is even more acute. I talked to a friend who works for a local supermarket. He informed me of their shipping schedule, and the total number of truck that have to come in every single day, regardless of weather. He tells me that his store is projected to run out of everythging they have in stock in less than 78 hours without re-supply.

I ask3d him what his store might do in the aftermath of an EMP attack. I was surprised to learn that he had an answer. Evidently, they have a plan to doscount all products and go cash-and-carry. The idea is to clear the store out as soon as possible and lock it down.

Just for giggles, I went through my house to look and see how much cash I had on hand. Counting loose change, I came up with 32 dollar and 18 cents. I live just one mile from a supermarket. Just for fun, I made out a list of what I thought my money would buy, based on what I might need and what I think I can carry. that money doesn't go very far.

I really don't like to think about what I might be forced to do under those conditions. Let's hope this really isn't part of the anatomy of our next global war.

As we watch the United Nations become less and less effective, it may be of interest to some of you to look back over this thread to see how many of your predictions have come true. The dterioriating state of international relations make it more and more likely that those of you under the age of 21 may expeirence some form of military service within the next 3-5 years.